The Con Man
| Published date | 01 January 1939 |
| Date | 01 January 1939 |
| Author | Tom Ashworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3901200106 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Con Man
A
DIFFERENT
ANGLE
OF
ApPROACH
By
SUPERINTENDENT
TOM
ASHWORTH
Deputy
Chief Constable, City of Bath
THE confidence trickster when arrested has in the past
usually been charged with such offences as larceny by
trick, false pretences and loitering with intent. These
offences are all triable summarily, subject to certain condi-
tions, and the con man is perfectly familiar with this aspect
of
the
law. He is, by the nature of his profession, apsycho-
logist of
the
first class and believes
that
when he is caught
the line of least resistance is the best attitude to adopt.
In
consequence, when he appears before the Court, unless he
is certain he has a good defence, he is anxious to plead
guilty to a summary offence and ask for it to be dealt with
at once, and is glad to take a sentence of three to six months
as a matter of course.
The
high stakes for which he gambles,
and so often wins, make it worth his while to be philosophic
under
these circumstances and always courteous to
the
Court, police and prison officers,
thus
ensuring reciprocation
as far as is consistent with official regulations. Such sen-
tences are grossly out of all proportion to the magnitude of
the
offence and do nothing even to check the activities of
the con man, let alone seriously impede him.
The
police are always labouring
under
great difficulties
in fighting this class of crime.
The
con man, although known
to the police, is far too clever and subtle to lay himself open
to arrest on sight, and this, combined with
the
reluctance of
the
dupe to advertise his foolishness, has too often left an
investigating officer helpless when he knows
that
acrime
has been committed
under
his nose.
In
practically all
the
tricks used by tricksters an
53
54
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
essential feature of
the
proceedings is
the
production
of
documents of one
sort
or another so as, firstly, to gain
the
confidence of
the
victim to be,
and
secondly, to
induce
him
to
part
with his money.
Such
documents have been found
in
the
possession of con
men
on
their
arrest and, in fact,
have been seen to be used by them, by detectives.
The
value
of these documents as evidence has
not
been
rated
very
highly;
they
have merely been used to
support
one or
other
of
the
comparatively
minor
charges
mentioned
above. As
aresult
the
fraternity of confidence tricksters has never
cared very
much
if
the
police should find a document of
this
sort
in
the
possession of one of
them
when
arrested,
although
they
are usually careful
not
to have too many on
them
at one time.
It
has apparently escaped
their
notice,
and
that
of
the
police too,
that
such
documents are forgeries
and
that
it is
acriminal offence to
utter
them, let alone forge
them.
This
seemingly extraordinary state of affairs is explainable by
the
popular
misconception of
what
is forgery.
Many
people
think
that
forgery can only be
the
signing of some
person's
name on a
document
with
intent
to steal
that
person's
money;
for example, to imitate somebody's name on a
cheque
and
then
cash it. A
study
of
the
Forgery Act, 1913,
section
I,
will show how
much
wider
the
true
definition is.
Had
it
not
been for this misconception
the
elaborate
forms
and
other
printed
matter
used by con
men
in
their
,
professional'
capacity would
most
certainly have figured
in charges of forgery
and
similar offences against con men.
In
actual fact, however, it was
not
until
the
case of
Rex
v.
Barker and Gray was
heard
at
the
Bristol Assizes before
Mr.
Justice Finlay in
July
1938
that
convictions
under
the
Forgery Act, 1913, were obtained for this
type
of crime.
These
men
were arrested while operating
upon
avictim
whose suspicions
had
been aroused
and
who
had
complained
to
the
police,
and
at
the
time of
the
arrest was acting on
their
instructions.
They
were charged originally with
attempted
larceny,
but
the
evidence to substantiate
the
charge was
not
very strong, although
the
prisoners were
prepared
to plead
guilty
and
take asentence of six months.
In
their
possession,
To continue reading
Request your trial